What Objectivist society needs government for?

[2046]

The answer in the word " objective". People need a group of professional philosophers of Law, jurists, legislators who are dedicated to the task of making objective laws. This in my view is an Objectivist government. The point is not that people get some special objective ability when they join a government, but people who possess this ability [should] form the government. Did I address a non sequitur?

Yeah, the conclusion (blue) doesn't follow strictly from the premise (red). People need groups of professionals for all sorts of tasks, that is the division of labor. But in order to answer the question in the OP, more information on why they should form a government is needed.

[Nicky]

Nicky: "Why would a fact of reality be sad?"

You refer to the possible scenario in the distant future as a fact of reality? This is odd.

The fact of reality part is where you made that scenario up without any basis in reality. It IS a fact of reality that your prediction is arbitrary and contradicted by everything that exists in reality. It's just as arbitrary as any other claim about any other Utopia, be it Heaven or Marx's Socialism or any number of science fiction novels on the subject.

And your position is sad because in fact you claim that...

Oh boy, here comes "my position". I'm sure it's gonna be accurately represented. I find that whenever someone feels the need to tell me what my position is, they're always dead on.

I don't know why I bother posting, I should just let other people post my opinions for me.

[Nicky]

Excellently said, moralist. Of course you do distinguish between an abstract Utopia - and a "vision", as was Rand's,

of how men should and can live together. In the latter sense, it seems you extol a personal, individualist "utopia" which is well

within one's reach, and so, rational, and worthy.

In the accepted sense of the word, I believe Utopia to be 'top-down', rationalistic, collectivist and necessarily coerced.

It presupposes that an ideal system - as such - can make man moral. But each has to make his or her own commitment

to reality and reason, which is why I think it is an O'ist anti-concept.

I think Leonid just used the word to mean "an impossible ideal". That's certainly the most common meaning. That is what I called his scenario from the OP (without using the word utopia, to avoid any confusion): impossible.

[whYNOT]

Yeah, I think we should ditch the word Utopia altogether - come up with something more explanatory

than "a rational society", too. What we're all coming at from different directions, and arguing over

unnecessarily, is the same end point. Although I cannot envisage a complete Objectivist society, I

am certain it will be the growing and solid nucleus influencing a vastly more - well - rational society.

No other influence is as strong as individual rights/capitalism. From there, more people questioning

altruism-collectivism, while the notion dawns on them that it is right and proper to be self-interested.

Despite (because of, also) recent trends in the USA, I look to America to lead the way. Still.

(One's "sphere of influence" as mentioned by *moralist* - conducted entirely selfishly - is not to

be underestimated in affecting others' minds in a secondary and benevolent manner. Your virtues and

values touch even unknown peoples' lives in ways you can't forsee.)

[tadmjones]

I want a rational government! Always!!

Edited December 30, 2012 by tadmjones

[moralist]

Ha!

I meant something more like the Geth or the Omar from Mass Effect and Deus Ex.

Got the Omar reference. Deus Ex was one of my favorite games.

Leonid's arguments were leaning towards the idea that science and technology will eliminate the need for government.

Only one thing could ever eliminate the need for government... and that's only if people were to become decent enough to govern themselves.

[Leonid]

Yeah, the conclusion (blue) doesn't follow strictly from the premise (red). People need groups of professionals for all sorts of tasks, that is the division of labor. But in order to answer the question in the OP, more information on why they should form a government is needed.

This is a question of linguistics. The group of people who deal with legislation called government. Call them " council" or " Elders" or what you wish if you don't like " government".

[Leonid]

The fact of reality part is where you made that scenario up without any basis in reality. It IS a fact of reality that your prediction is arbitrary and contradicted by everything that exists in reality. It's just as arbitrary as any other claim about any other Utopia, be it Heaven or Marx's Socialism or any number of science fiction novels on the subject.

Oh boy, here comes "my position". I'm sure it's gonna be accurately represented. I find that whenever someone feels the need to tell me what my position is, they're always dead on.

I don't know why I bother posting, I should just let other people post my opinions for me.

Nicky, please! I posted SF story to make a certain point. This point does pertain to reality. The story is obviously arbitrary. Suppose I present another society in which all people are genetically modified in such a way that they cannot initiate force. This is an arbitrary proposition. But a question whether or not such a society needs government pertains to reality, that is-to the proper function of Objective government. I claim that even such a society will need government because it will need a legislation which would attend issues others than initiation of force. Now, the idea that in the full-fledged Objectivist society after many generations of proper education the initiation of force would be as unthinkable as a cannibalism today and wouldn't need any specific laws or law enforcement is not so far-fetched. After all we don't have any specific laws against cannibalism.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Hairnet: "Leonid's arguments were leaning towards the idea that science and technology will eliminate the need for government. "

Actually not . See my post #8. My main argument that even the non-coercive society still needs government, because the main government function is not coercion but legislation. And as for law enforcement agencies-in Objectivist society all such agencies are voluntary and privately funded and therefore are private.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Got the Omar reference. Deus Ex was one of my favorite games.

Only one thing could ever eliminate the need for government... and that's only if people were to become decent enough to govern themselves.

Can each and every one out of tens thousands broadcasters to allocate frequencies for himself just by himself without an objective principle , that is- a law , how to do so? What about myriads of different unimaginable situations which could arise in the future and which would require such a law? To view government as a cop who justs protects rights and prevents initiation of force is very simplistic view.

[tadmjones]

This is a question of linguistics. The group of people who deal with legislation called government. Call them " council" or " Elders" or what you wish if you don't like " government".

Or as I mentioned in another thread , the idea of bureaucracy. Objective laws would be the governing principles and the agents hired, or elected would execute the functions of the government based on strict adherence as to what the law states.

[2046]

This is a question of linguistics. The group of people who deal with legislation called government. Call them " council" or " Elders" or what you wish if you don't like " government".

A: What society needs a shoe monopoly for? The truth is, even a moral and virtuous society would need one monopoly shoe producing organization.

B: Why are shoes something only a shoe monopoly can create?

A: People need a group of professional cobblers, leatherworkers, tailors who are dedicated to the task of making shoes. This in my view is a shoe monopoly. The point is not that people get some special shoe-producing ability when they form a shoe monopoly, but people who possess this ability form the shoe monopoly. Did I address a non sequitur?

B: Yes. The conclusion (people who possess this ability [should] form a shoe monopoly), doesn't strictly follow from the premise (people need a group of professional cobblers, leatherworkers, tailors who are dedicated to the task of making shoes.) People need groups of professionals for all sorts of tasks, that is the division of labor. But in order to answer the original question (why do we need a shoe monopoly), more information on why they should form a monopoly (as opposed to other types of organizations) is needed.

A: Why, this is nothing but a question of linguistics! The group of people who deal with shoe-production are called the shoe monopoly. Call them "council" or "Elders" or what you wish if you don't like "shoe monopoly."

B: ... lol?

[moralist]

A: What society needs a shoe monopoly for? The truth is, even a moral and virtuous society would need one monopoly shoe producing organization.

B: Why are shoes something only a shoe monopoly can create?

A: People need a group of professional cobblers, leatherworkers, tailors who are dedicated to the task of making shoes. This in my view is a shoe monopoly. The point is not that people get some special shoe-producing ability when they form a shoe monopoly, but people who possess this ability form the shoe monopoly. Did I address a non sequitur?

B: Yes. The conclusion (people who possess this ability [should] form a shoe monopoly), doesn't strictly follow from the premise (people need a group of professional cobblers, leatherworkers, tailors who are dedicated to the task of making shoes.) People need groups of professionals for all sorts of tasks, that is the division of labor. But in order to answer the original question (why do we need a shoe monopoly), more information on why they should form a monopoly (as opposed to other types of organizations) is needed.

A: Why, this is nothing but a question of linguistics! The group of people who deal with shoe-production are called the shoe monopoly. Call them "council" or "Elders" or what you wish if you don't like "shoe monopoly."

B: ... lol?

The missing magic ingredient... ~Competition~

Competition produces excellence, quality, efficiency, and innovation. Monopoly produces mediocrity, fraud, and waste... whether in the private sector corporations, or in public sector government.

[moralist]

Can each and every one out of tens thousands broadcasters to allocate frequencies for himself just by himself without an objective principle , that is- a law , how to do so?

People who govern themselves willingly cooperate with others who govern themselves. Laws exist only for the lawless. The amount of laws is inversely proportional to the degree that people govern themselves.

Edited January 1, 2013 by moralist

[2046]

People who govern themselves willingly cooperate with others who govern themselves. Laws exist only for the lawless. The amount of laws is inversely proportional to the degree that people govern themselves.

This touches on a good point. There is a second non sequitur between "we need objective law" and "the main function of government is legislation." Law and legislation are two separate things. There is a sense of, well we need objective law, ergo we infer the necessity of a legislature; after all, men have to be sitting there passing and "writing" the laws. But law on the one hand, and legislation or statutory law, on the other hand, are not coextensive. There are different ways of forming law, and legislative law can actually be less compatible with freedom and objectivity.

[Leonid]

2046 "This in my view is a shoe monopoly. The point is not that people get some special shoe-producing ability when they form a shoe monopoly, but people who possess this ability form the shoe monopoly. Did I address a non sequitur?"

This is not a non-sequitur but simply a counting of nails with apples. Everybody could make a shoe for himself and even to put together a motor car. But law is a code of conduct which applies to all people. The objective law is a law which pertains to reality, that is-human nature. If a shoe doesn't fit, the only its owner would suffer. If a law is subjective-all people would. The private subjective law which applies only to the person who made it is not a law at all. It's a whim worshiping. Objective law is law of nature, not man-made as a shoe, but based on the metaphysically given reality. Such a law is not created but discovered as all other laws of nature. A discovery and explicit formulation of such a law and its endorsement is a task for government, that is-a group of people who are dealing with such a task. This is a government monopoly on legislation. To reject it is as to reject a monopoly of physicists on discovery of laws of physics. And contrary to what moralist said, one cannot compete on natural law, it applies to everyone. Can you imagine that some people accept law of gravitation and act in accordance to it, but their competitors reject it? How excellent, efficient and innovative it would be?

Edited January 1, 2013 by Leonid

[Leonid]

People who govern themselves willingly cooperate with others who govern themselves. Laws exist only for the lawless. The amount of laws is inversely proportional to the degree that people govern themselves.

Cooperate in according of what principle? Governing themselves on what basis? Is it an explicit principle which pertains to reality or it based of whim, gut-feeling, divine revelation and other non-objective means? Law mainly exists for the law-obedient people, it is a principle on which all cooperation and self-governing based. The lawless people are simply irrelevant to such a conduct. They could be isolated from society by different means with or without coercion or ignored.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Leonid

[moralist]

Cooperate in according of what principle? Governing themselves on what basis?

On the basis that doing what is morally right is always in a person's best interest because it makes them a better human being. I fully realize this is an ideal, but in my opinion it is well worth our aspirations. For the only thing that will ever make the government smaller is governing ourselves.

Is it an explicit principle which pertains to reality or it based of whim, gut-feeling, divine revelation and other non-objective means?

It is fully based on reality... and you can easily prove it for yourself by your own direct personal experience. Simply do something which you know is morally wrong and observe how you cannot escape the just and deserved consequences you set into motion by your own actions. This moral law as absolutely objective as the law of gravity to which everyone is equally subject.

Law mainly exists for the law-obedient people

Law only exists because there are law breakers.

Edited January 1, 2013 by moralist

[2046]

2046 "This in my view is a shoe monopoly. The point is not that people get some special shoe-producing ability when they form a shoe monopoly, but people who possess this ability form the shoe monopoly. Did I address a non sequitur?"

This is not a non-sequitur but simply a counting of nails with apples. Everybody could make a shoe for himself and even to put together a motor car. But law is a code of conduct which applies to all people. The objective law is a law which pertains to reality, that is-human nature. If a shoe doesn't fit, the only its owner would suffer. If a law is subjective-all people would. The private subjective law which applies only to the person who made it is not a law at all. It's a whim worshiping. Objective law is law of nature, not man-made as a shoe, but based on the metaphysically given reality. Such a law is not created but discovered as all other laws of nature. A discovery and explicit formulation of such a law and its endorsement is a task for government, that is-a group of people who are dealing with such a task. This is a government monopoly on legislation. To reject it is as to reject a monopoly of physicists on discovery of laws of physics. And one cannot compete on natural law, it applies to everyone. Can you imagine that some people accept law of gravitation and act in accordance to it, but their competitors reject it? How excellent, efficient and innovative it would be?

I am a bit confounded at this response. If we didn't have a shoe monopoly, does that mean that everybody must make a shoe for himself? The answer seems self-evident. The entire social division of labor is set up for that reason. I even mentioned the division of labor previously.

You state that laws are not created but discovered as are the laws of nature. We can agree on this. But if discovery of law falls within the province of human knowledge just as the laws of nature, then why do we need a monopoly institution? Just as we do not require a singe monopoly organization to dictate what is true in science or history, so we do not require such an organization to dictate standards and procedures in the realm of justice. You state there is a monopoly of physicists. What? This is news to me. Since when do we have a monopoly of physicists? Precisely because we don't have a monopoly of physicsts is a good reason why we don't need a monopoly of law producers.

You state that some people could make private subjective whim worshipping laws. Okay, sure. I could make one right now. I henceforth proclaim I am the ruler of the universe. What happened? Nothing. But what if I were the monopolist of law? The fear of non-objective laws is precisely a reason not to have a monopolist producer of laws. There is no one decider of physics opinions, or one dictionary-maker, and yet we don't fear opening up a dictionary and finding words suddenly changed around. Presicely because the rules of grammar are apprehendable by human reason, we can reject dictionaries that produce subjective, whim-worshipping definitons not based on reality. The fact that we need to be able to reject subjective law is a good reason to have competition and not a monopoly.

And finally, in accordance with my above point on the conflation of legislation with law itself, this is a perfect example. You even explicitly state law is discovered, not created. But then, what is left for legislation? In the words of Lysander Spooner, if legislative laws "command anything but justice, or forbid anything but injustice, they are themselves unjust and criminal. If they simply command justice, and forbid injustice, they add nothing to the natural authority of justice, or to men’s obligation to obey it."

[Leonid]

No matter whether person makes his own shoes or buys them from the "monopolists" the shoe has to be made in according to the certain standard, a law, which pertains to the anatomy of the human foot. These laws have to be discovered and explicitly formulated. However, if a person prefers to ignore these laws, only him would be a victim. If person ignores an objective law of social conduct or if such a law is not objective all the people will be victims. That why a transgression of such a law or subjective law cannot be allowed and that is one of the reasons we need a government monopoly on legislation. Another one-we need a high degree of scrutiny, a peer review mechanism while we formulate and exercise such a law. Such a mechanism exists even in scientific community, in spite laws of physics and grammar are not compulsatory applicable to everybody. However a law by its very nature is a compulsatory code of conduct. It cannot be accepted or rejected on whim. If it could , it wouldn't be a law but a recommendation, a friendly advice. If you just proclaim that you are a ruler of the world, nobody would pay any attention, except maybe your shrink. But if you will start to behave as one, then you'd be restrained by the law enforced agency which has a monopoly to act in accordance with objective law defined by government. All other eventuality would mean a non-objective conduct.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Leonid